Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations
Nominations without objections Add new nominations on top, one section per nomination. Defiant class (June 28) Another self-nomination. I updated the History of the class, added information about its tactical and defensive systems, and added information about its interior design. Ottens 19:49, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Sovereign class (June 28) Self-nomination. I think it's quite good. ;) Ottens 12:36, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. Very good work, but it still needs lots of additional pictures, IMO. -- Redge 12:51, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Support. But there are already plenty of images... don't go overboard, please! -- Dan Carlson 16:18, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::I checked back and almost all pictures I was looking for are now there. Thanks! -- Redge 16:36, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Battle of Sector 001 (June 28) After DarkHorizon performed some major rewriting on the article and after i added some pics (Sorry DarkHorizon!), i'd say this looks like a featured article to me... --BlueMars 00:12, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST) *Support, of course. -- Michael Warren 00:45, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Support. I just finished some minor editing on this myself. -- Dan Carlson 02:12, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Support. I get the feeling there are still things to be said in this article, but the bulk of it is ready. And done fairly quickly and well, I might add. My compliments. -- Redge 11:22, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. Good work, Ottens 11:28, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Shinzon (June 27) Self-nomination. I just finished rewriting the article, and IMO it's a good summary of one of Trek's most personal villains. -- Dan Carlson 20:12, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. Are you the only one writing Featured Article here? :P Ottens 21:54, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded, although we should reimplement the sidebar with quickinfo. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. I agree with BlueMars. -- Redge 11:22, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) ** As I already explained to BlueMars, I removed the sidebar because it was IMO superfluous. All of the information was provided in the first sentence (or at most the first paragraph) of the article. It just wasn't necessary in my eyes. -- Dan Carlson 16:31, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Doomsday machine (June 27) Self-nomination. A fairly long and detailed article about one of the best TOS episodes there was. -- Dan Carlson 17:01, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Renominated. Previous nomination failed, see Talk:Doomsday machine and nominations archive. -- Redge 14:36, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST) *Support before, support now. -- Michael Warren 00:45, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) **Seconded. Dito. -- Redge 11:22, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Battle of the Bassen Rift (June 26) Self-nomination. A couple of Archivists made a great start for this article, and I did a major rewrite of this big battle from Nemesis. -- Dan Carlson 20:27, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. -- Redge 20:33, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. Very good article! Ottens 21:54, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST) *Support. -- Michael Warren 00:45, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Search for the Xindi superweapon (June 26) Formerly nominated (sorta) as Xindi War. IMO Steve Mollman did a great job of reworking this article into a comprehensive summary of ENT's whole mission in the Expanse. -- Dan Carlson 20:27, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded (though the title is very weird and this article may have to be moved in the future). -- Redge 20:33, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Mollman'n''. Anyway, seconded, obviously. I tried to put in a reference of some sort to every Season 3 episode. And as for the title, it was the best I could do. --Steve 07:22, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Certainly seconded. That's a very extensive in-depth article, which certainly deserves to be a Featured Article. Though I agree the title is a little odd, but I honestly can't think of a better name for the article, though. Good work! Ottens 21:54, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST) *Support. -- Michael Warren 00:45, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Battle of Wolf 359 (June 26) Together with the list of ships at Wolf 359, this article gives all canon-info along with good illustrations. The article was created with the help of various people. --BlueMars 18:53, Jun 26, 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. -- Redge 19:33, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Approve. (I did some major rewriting on this article a while back.) -- Dan Carlson 20:27, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. It's pretty good. Ottens 21:54, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST) *Definitely support -- Michael Warren Enterprise (NX-01) (June 23) Self-nomination. A very detailed history (and alternate histories) of this very important vessel. --Steve 21:40, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. Good references! -- Redge 19:33, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) ** I'm big on the references. ;) --Steve 07:22, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Approve. -- Dan Carlson 20:27, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. Ottens 21:54, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST) * Steve has done an excellent job on this article, and I was preparing to nominate it myself! -- Michael Warren 00:45, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Bajoran wormhole (June 23) Self-nomination. Everything you need to know about the galaxy's only known stable wormhole. ;-) -- Dan Carlson 03:21, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. -- Redge 10:13, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Objected (or however you say it). It doesn't really cover the events of Season 5 and beyond in any great detail; it entirely omits the whole closing and reopening thing. I'd add it myself, but my memory of late DS9 is virtually nonexistant. --Steve 07:22, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) **Egad, how could I have forgotten about that?! I've fixed that omission by adding a new paragraph. Thanks for the catch, Steve! -- Dan Carlson 17:18, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) **Approved, then. :) --Steve 21:26, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST) *Support. -- Michael Warren 00:45, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Nominations with objections Excelsior class (June 28) Very detailed article. Congratulations Ottens. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST) *Oppose for now. Still a great deal of work being done and needing to be done to clear out non-canon and outright speculation. See Talk:Excelsior class. Would support once consensus is reached. -- Michael Warren 00:42, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Oppose, for the same reasons as Michael said. -- Dan Carlson 02:12, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) * I think you nominated this one a bit to soon Bluemars. Maybe in a coule of days, when the issues are resolved. -- Redge 11:22, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) * It seems my writing was simply removed, while we were still debating it... At least the article does not contain any non-canon information anymore. Ottens 11:27, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) *I've read the new version, but I still feel there are a lot of issues to be resolved before we feature this article. See the talk page for more details. -- Redge 11:55, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Oppose. Much of the data is baseless, there seems to be a lot of resistance to including accurate data here. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 15:05, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Earth (June 18) Various people have contributed to this article and jointly created what i consider a very good overview of one of the most important locations in the Trek-universe. However, there are still numerous dead links among the cities and the orbital facilities. --BlueMars 20:55, Jun 18, 2004 (CEST) *True, but in the explination itself there are almost no dead links (one). Only in the "reference list". I think this could make a good nominated article, though there might still be some info added. Ottens 14:30, 22 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. If this article is featured, the dead links will fill up themselves. -- Redge 15:49, 22 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Oppose for now. Although the dead links are IMO not a good reason to deny featured article status, I still think there's more information that needs to be added to this article, particularly in the area of history and events in the Trek universe. -- Dan Carlson 20:27, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) **I hadn't thought of that. Change my vote to oppose. -- Redge 21:37, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) * It's a good article, but a lot of red/dead links need to be filled up first. For now, opposed. Ottens 21:54, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Red links are definitely not a valid reason to oppose, IMO. But, the article could definitely do with expansion. -- Michael Warren 00:46, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)